HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120521 - VIII-B-1 (2)
To: The Hastings City Council May 21, 2012 From: Rita Dahl Subject: Variance Request for 209 7th Street West I have expressed my opposition to Andy and Martha McCoy’s request for a variance
before the Heritage Preservation Commission, the City Planning Commission and 2 weeks ago, the City Council. Tonight, I wanted to provide a summary of my reasons. First, we live in a
designated historic district. The requested variance is not in compliance with HPC guidelines that have been in place for several years. Historically, garages and accessory buildings
have been freestanding and built along lot lines in the rear yard, that is, along the alleys. The HPC guidelines recognize this practice in a number of places when discussing construction
of new buildings on historic properties: 1. Page 28: “2. Siting and Setback Design new construction compatible with the setback, orientation, and spacing of older buildings…. Design
new construction to conserve site features such as topography, trees, and significant vistas and and views.” 2. Page 30: “Carriage barns and garages add to Hastings’ historic structure
and should be conserved. New garages and other accessory structures should be compatible with the companion historic house and the streetscape.” 3. Page 40: “New construction should
relate to the placement and orientation of adjacent historic buildings.” If the request to build an attached garage is approved, it will not be compatible with the design of the existing
house or neighboring properties where garages are built in the rear of the properties, along the alley. The HPC is strongly against attaching garages to houses in the historic district.
Doing so not only destroys the cohesion on the block, but also prevents designation as National historic properties. The Pringle house—120 7th Street West—for example, is a significant
historic property that will not qualify without removal of the attached garage (which was added before the HPC guidelines were implemented). Also, the Council should be aware that the
two most recent garages built on our block— 222 and 223 7th Street West—and several new garages throughout the neighborhood are detached garages built in compliance with the historic
guidelines. The Planning Commission suggested that a new garage on the existing footprint would be acceptable. However, the McCoys rejected this suggestion out of hand. They have publicly
stated that building an attached garage has been their intention since buying the property 8 years ago, knowing that the HPC guidelines do not permit this. Second, the City Planning
Commission, supported by City Staff, determined that there is no hardship justifying a variance. Andy McCoy requested that access to the existing garage from 7th Street be closed 4 years
ago during the North Vermillion street project, thus creating the situation he uses to justify his request today. At that time, neither the HPC nor City Staff approved a plan to attach
a garage to the house. The HPC minutes clearly document this understanding. Third, the variance request has been submitted as two requests—one for the house and one for the garage. These
are not separate variances since the garage is attached to the house. In essence, it is a request for a variance to build an addition 1.5 feet from the neighboring property. Separating
the two
building “functions” is a distinction without a difference. If an addition and a detached garage were proposed, two separate variance requests should be considered, but this is not the
case. What makes this variance request more difficult are the numerous revisions to the application that have been made. The variance request before the HPC was different from the variance
request before the Planning Commission, and the variance before the City Council is different than the one before the Planning Commission. Fourth, approving a variance that is not supported
by either the HPC guidelines for historic properties or standard practice (i.e. a legitimate hardship) will create a bad precedent for future requests within the historic districts and
the City as a whole. Finally, I want the Council to know that I am not against an addition to the main house or a new detached garage. The McCoys’ final plan should comply with the same
guidelines and requirements that their neighbors follow. As the HPC, City Staff and the the Planning Commission have determined, this is possible. Respectfully submitted, Rita Dahl 205
7th Street West
